Apech

"he was saying if you look at the ultimate nature of things there is no totally independent, autonomous and unchanging nature." ... quoting myself

Buddhist Influence on Early Taoism: A Survey of Scriptural Evidence Erik Zürcher http://www.jstor.org/stable/4528195?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents ... sorry can't cut and paste from here ... but article is worth reading and short extract attached as pic is interesting. Buddhist influence on Taoism.tiff

http://polytheist.com/noeseis/2015/04/20/polytheism-and-science-ii-parmenides/

50 Shades of Astral Grey. ... the Noball Prize for literature is in the post.

Nungali, That was one fucking weird post. Thanks.

Some Taoist texts are very Buddhist influenced. Some Buddhism is very Taoist influenced. I think it is a tribute to both 'ways' that they managed to be to this degree symbiotic. Others on here do not agree. If you search you will find many threads on this kind of subject. The idea of non-self is really Anatman ... no Atman which means something like an eternal self or essence. The existence of the Atman was a teaching of the Vedic religion and the Buddha was critiquing it by saying it is not necessary to cling to the idea of an eternal you in order to become realised. In fact the opposite. But he was not saying there is no self in the ordinary everyday sense ... he was saying if you look at the ultimate nature of things there is no totally independent, autonomous and unchanging nature. Interestingly most ancient religions held that an individual was composed of several entities which come to together during life and separate at death (hun and po in Taoism). In a way this is saying that what you experience as 'you' is actually an interaction of several things (eg. mind/ body and so on). So what the Buddha was saying was not actually that controversial. In Vedic religion the Atman reincarnates in new bodies again and again until it reaches perfection and joins with the Brahman. In Tibetan Buddhism the conscious principle is passed on, like a candle lit from another candle, so each incarnation is different but yet in the same stream so to speak. The end of this is Buddhahood where the mind realises its own nature, so there is no self to extinguish just mind.

“And I — my head oppressed by horror — said: "Master, what is it that I hear? Who are those people so defeated by their pain?" And he to me: "This miserable way is taken by the sorry souls of those who lived without disgrace and without praise. They now commingle with the coward angels, the company of those who were not rebels nor faithful to their God, but stood apart. The heavens, that their beauty not be lessened, have cast them out, nor will deep Hell receive them — even the wicked cannot glory in them.” ... ha! Losers!

It was not the act of say,prostrating or bowing and so on that bothered me, and I don't have a problem with people objectifying what they hold to be most high in externals - since really there are no internals or externals (or so I would say). I prostrate myself having completed the 100,000 for the ngondro. Its the mental attitude when doing them that bugs me. If you look at Tibetans for instance they seem to glow and grow with these practices. They are not abasing themselves in any sense as far as I can see. Somehow its natural and positive. But when I see westerners do this there is always a sense of cowering before the most high - principly because they want something or like to feel that making themselves low raises them up. I don't like this kind of thing. Why do you want to shake it? Conceptual thought is very useful, in fact an aspect of 'the transcendent' if we are going to be non-dualist. Nuff said.

LOL! Oddly though Christian thinking is very pernicious. I have noticed many people who have gone to eastern traditions Buddhism, Vedanta and so on who are really still thinking like Christians. I wonder if this is due to the Faith vs, Intellect split which happened progressively from the Middle Ages. So people are taught to use critical reasoning when thinking about the world, but faith/belief only when looking at spiritual matters. It has the effect of reserving part of the mind/brain free from examination. What the eastern traditions provide is a kind of rational basis for contemplation and inner experience which has been more or less cast out in the west by the 'it's subjective' argument of science. But still I observe that many Buddhists like to behave cringingly like Christians abasing themselves before masters and deities. I attributed this to cultural confusion before but I am beginning to think that it is a conceptual imprint which is very hard to shake. Some so called secular Buddhists go so far as to more or less reject Buddhism in favour of some kind of neuroscience. Some Taoists treat the TTC and other texts like Bible studies while to the Chinese philosophers the text is the 'dregs' of wisdom. Advaita Vedanta is so popular particularly because the equation God = Brahman and Atman = soul is so easy to make.

Or the end of an alchemical process.

There's cultural religion of course. Not quite just habit but more that the church is an integral part of people's lives i.e. what you do on Sunday morning. Some one suggested to me recently that religion only really starts when a lineage dies. That is an inspired teacher like Jesus teaches and this is passed on person to person for a few generations but slowly peters out. When it ends the religion as religion starts. Of course it can be renewed by realised teachers, contemplatives and those who receive revelation. But the trouble is it is those people who most frighten the orthodox. The loss or diminution of contemplatives is the reason for the decline in the church as they are the life blood of its renewal.

I didn't look. I was never here.

Lo! I just popped in form your other thread. You seem quite interested in sin (and its non-existence). Without wishing to presume I feel it might be good to get back to more zazen. God can be very confusing I think, so can Jesus and all those guys. I'm not sure Paul ever really recovered from falling off that donkey. Good luck though and best wishes.

Nickolai1, In a sense I am rather impressed that the Church of England still care whether people believe in God or Jesus. It has seemed almost optional of late - and more important to worry about women bishops and gay priests. I am a Brit myself and my parents are agnostic/atheist scientists, the only religious education I received was at the hands of state schooling. However I think perhaps the sticking point in your correspondence is the bit about Jesus not being unique. I think they probably would have accommodated an interest in Buddhism and yoga but not the equivalence. There is after all a famous TV vicar who went round the world trying every type of religion. What I don't quite understand is why you approached the CoE in the first place. Do you consider yourself to be basically Christian? Do you find being a vicar an attractive future for yourself? If you want to extend kindness to others you could try the charity/voluntary sector ... or just use your teaching childcare experience to continue down that route.

I had that message and had to delete cookies to get back ... cos Chrome seems to always go to cache ... on Safari no problem.

You thought the leaden winter would bring you down forever, But you rode upon a steamer to the violence of the sun. And the colours of the sea bind your eyes with trembling mermaids, And you touch the distant beaches with tales of brave Ulysses, How his naked ears were tortured by the sirens sweetly singing, For the sparkling waves are calling you to kiss their white laced lips. ... just came into my mind.

I think LZ might have said 'the sacred only exists because of profanity' or some such.

Never.

Ok I give in.

If they are moving at the same speed and direction as you then you think yourself stationary.

Not if they are moving.

Err ... oh no can't be bothered.

really? cos wings are exactly adapted webbed arms and legs.

Particularly true of jobs in the sex industry.

not scared of nobody